SUNDAY AM, 3RD UPDATE: Latest Top 10 grosses show better North American box office than previously thought thanks to the Veterans Day holiday weekend when school is out in 60% of the country. The good news is a break from slumping attendance with a $137M total moviegoing weekend, up +18% from last year. But the bad news is that these movies are still way underperforming what they should have done on a holiday weekend. That’s because these major studio pics were definitely not crowd-pleasers. Just check out their Rotten Tomatoes scores. But the real question is why Hollywood released two young male-skewing movies the weekend right after two major video games were released. Anecdotal evidence is that the guys were otherwise engaged. Full analysis coming:

Richard Branson didn’t waste any time blogging to his peeps today: “Congratulations to Jason and the whole team at Virgin Produced for Immortals, their follow up film to Limitless, going straight to number one at the box office this weekend. Jammy bastards!!” He’s as good at spinning underwhelming box office as Relativity’s Ryan Kavanaugh. Truth is Immortals started out slow: it did an unexciting $1.4M in Thursday midnight gross from approximately 900 locations then expanded runs and grosses for Friday but lost -30% Saturday. Pic eked out a $30+M weekend bow, which is a rarity these days. But you also must realize that Immortals is a 300-clone yet didn’t make even 45% of the $70.8M opening amount that the original 2D movie did back in 2006. Even with the higher 3D ticket prices. Immortals should have made $50+M, folks, given the genre and promotion. “300 was absolutely a big success, but we are in a different economy, marketplace, and time of year,” a Relativity exec told me Friday night. “Young males have been hard to get over the past year. It’s a significant accomplishment that we got them. We are well positioned to be the 3rd highest R-rated film this year and the highest R-rated action film this year. This is a win for us.” Needless to say, Relativity is known for its bluster. But it also claims reduced risk from foreign pre-sales on the supposedly $75M-budgeted film. Then explain to me why, for 2 years, Relativity was telling everybody and their mother that the budget of Immortals was $120M. (Don’t believe me? Go back and do a Google search). It sold the film internationally to foreign buyers with a budget of $120M. Now, all of a sudden, the budget is $75 million because of what Relativity says are tax rebates for shooting and doing post production in Montreal? Puh-leeze.

Audiences gave Immortals a ‘B’ CinemaScore but Rotten Tomatoes recorded just 37% positive reviews. That’s lousy considering the pic is from the producers of 300 (Mark Canton and Gianni Nunnari). Yet now Relativity tries to claim this new epic adventure is “completely original — it’s not derived from a comic book; is not based on a novel; and is not a sequel.” Tarsem Singh (The Cell, The Fall) directed and Charles Parlapanides & Vlas Parlapanides are the credited screenwriters. Marketing was aggressive and therefore expensive. It kicked off at Wondercon in April, followed by Comic-Con in July, and what even the studios says was a “barrage” of publicity media appearances, in-theater marketing, outdoor advertising, and radio/TV spots. Partnerships/alliances included Best Buy. Relativity owns worldwide rights to Immortals; Lionsgate handled foreign sales. Alliance Films is releasing in Canada. About 70% of locations played the film in 3D.

Pic opened in over 35 international territories including China, UK, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea and Russia. Current estimated weekend box office is approximately $36M with a number of territories (including Indonesia and India) still to report. Relativity says this was the first title releasing through Sky Land, its joint venture with IDG and Saif Partners in China. The list of foreign output partners and additional territories is as long as my arm, including Austria/Constantin, Bulgaria/MGN, China/Sky Land, Finland/Nordisk, Germany/Constantin, Greece/Village, India/Soundspace, Israel/Forum, Italy/RAI, Japan/Universal, Netherlands/A-Film, Russia/CIS/MGN, Romania/MGN, South Africa/Nu Metro, South Korea/Next, Sweden/Nordisk, Turkey/Aqua, UK/Universal, United Arab Emirates/Gulf, Malaysia/PT Parkit, Taiwan/SSG.

Sony Pictures’ Jack And Jill starring Adam Sandler was hard-pressed to equal his usual $30+M opening comedies. (Maybe moviegoers aren’t as moronic as Hollywood thinks they are.) Rotten Tomatoes gave this turkey only a 3% positive score. Pic received a ‘B’ CinemaScore but also an ‘A-” from audiences under age 18. After releasing a trailer that was as viciously derided as I’ve ever seen on Deadline, Sony is relieved this Christmas-themed PG movie at least opened. So Adam is off the hook. “It’s a family film so it will play to a better multiple through the season than his normal movies,” one rival studio exec tells me. But you’ve gotta wonder if Sandler is developing a Jim Carrey problem and the public will stop supporting him if he’s in too many stinkers like this. Sony is somewhat alarmed that Adam keeps working with the same cronies in almost every film, but the studio also can’t tell its long-time golden goose Happy Madison to stop laying eggs. Sony sources claim the film was made for $80M and, unlike many comedians, Adam’s films do healthy business overseas because he’s worked at becoming a foreign draw. “So we will be in good shape when all is said and done,” the studio assures me. Unless moviegoers keep remembering what a suckfest this was and can’t get that bad taste out of their mouths when they think of paying for another film. Folks, it’s releases like this that are killing the biz.

That said, Sony did its usual stellar job building awareness for this turkey directed by Dennis Dugan and produced by Sandler, Jack Giarraputo, and Todd Garner. The screenplay os credited to Steve Koren & Adam Sandler with story by Ben Zook. The marketing campaign targeted Sandler’s core fans, and the concept was easy to grasp. (Uh, that was the problem…) Adam did his usual plethora of appearances and promotions to support the pic. In addition to the stuff you’d expect (Leno, Kimmel, Conan, Letterman, Today Show, Regis and Kelly, ad nauseum), he also taped an intro for Game 1 of the American League Championship Series, and did a recent episode of Dr. Phil featuring the real life twins from the movie. There were integrations with The X Factor and Survivor: South Pacific, interstitials on Nickelodeon, tie-ins on Comedy Central as well as promotions on TBS, ABC Family, and Univision, among others. Online Sony held an awkward sibling photo contest (awkwardfamilyphotos.com) and networked on social media with Sandler’s extensive fanbase, including his 25 million friends on Facebook.
3.Puss In Boots3D (DreamWorks Animation/Par) Week 3 [3,903 Theaters]
Friday $8M, Saturday $9.8M, Weekend $25M, Cume $108.8M

Another strong +23% hold for the cat because Puss In Boots clearly has nine lives. Until Happy Feet 2 opens Friday and the The Muppets follow the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, that is.

Hollywood was disappointed there wasn’t a stronger per screen average for Clint Eastwood’s and Leonardo DiCaprio’s Oscar-buzzed biopic. But top critics on Rotten Tomatoes surprisingly gave J. Edgar only 55% positive reviews, and audiences only a ‘B’ CinemaScore. MORE

4 PM: Since it’s Veteran’s Day, it’s a different kind of Friday with school out in 60% of the country. So I’m hesitant calling anything off matinees and will wait until tonight firms up. But if current trends continue, Sony Pictures’ Jack And Jill starring Adam Sandler looks hard-pressed to equal his usual $30+M opening comedies. (Maybe moviegoers aren’t as moronic as Hollywood thinks they are.) While the 300-clone Immortals, the 3D pic from Relativity, may not make more than 40% of the $70.8M opening weekend amount that the original 2D movie did. Immortals right now is looking to be the #1 movie at the North American box office but “could be anybody’s ballgame tonight,” a rival studio exec cautions me. Immortals did $1.4M in midnight gross from approximately 900 locations which is so-so. On the other hand, Warner Bros’ J. Edgar is looking at a strong per screen average for Clint Eastwood’s and Leonardo DiCaprio’s Oscar-buzzed biopic. Top 5 like this but check in later:

187 Comments

Iceberg • on Nov 11, 2011 4:46 pm

Relativity is toast.

300 it is not. • on Nov 11, 2011 6:10 pm

I don’t see it as a complete disaster but it is not a success, that’s for sure.

Over 50mm in P+A, which wasn’t Relativity money, so that needs to be paid back…let’s assume it does 30 for the weekend, will have a killer drop off because it is literally so bad it is unwatchable… It’ll probably hover around 60-70 domestically…. I don’t know what Relativity’s terms are with exhibs, but for rule of thumb let’s say 48%… So it takes in 35 million bucks?

Yawn

It’s looking more like 27 for the weekend with a SAT drop. It really needed to hit closer to 40 for the weekend for the folks to sleep well.

Hmm • on Nov 12, 2011 11:22 am

Whoops.

27 you say?

You should probably go back and revise this entire post. Everything about it is pretty much off.

Oh and 300 blew. And if you can’t tell the difference between Tarsem and Snyder I’d advise you audit some courses in filmmaking and film theory immediately. Thx.

A lot of misguided pundits in this town.

300 it is not. • on Nov 13, 2011 10:22 am

Why would I revise it? Seems pretty good to me…!

When the actuals come in, it’ll be closer to 30. I wasn’t that far off. Considering they were shouting from the rooftops that it was going to do 34-35 for the weekend, I’d say you can bugger off.

Now next weekend’s drop should be pretty damn fun. It needed to do 45mm for the weekend for them to be pleased, at least that’s what they were saying.

So where are we now for total domestic? 65?

P+A was 55, externally financed…

Is this a success?

Chad • on Nov 14, 2011 4:19 am

300 rocked.

asuka • on Nov 12, 2011 1:27 pm

“it is literally so bad it is unwatchable’

No, its not – it was actually quite good, and certainly in the top third percentile of its genre. Tarsem’s visuals are amazing, and there are other things to like about the film as well.

KOF • on Nov 13, 2011 12:45 am

If you take out the 25 percent bump up on the 3D ticket price, it really is a $24M take for “Immortals.” So, if “Immortals” was 2D, you’d be looking in the mid-20s range.

Al • on Nov 13, 2011 12:05 pm

Pointless post. You could play that ‘if it was in 2D…’ game with nearly every 3D film that comes out and the totals would all look a good deal less impressive including the almighty Avatar.

Hardy • on Nov 13, 2011 9:45 pm

And yet you can’t take it out because it is in 3D. And 24 million, interestingly, would still have been above industry expectations and early projections.

ROclockCK • on Nov 13, 2011 12:58 am

‘300 it is not’, indeed! Immortals was better than that. Its hold over the next few weeks will surprise a lot of folks, and overseas plus vid will be huge.

Hardy • on Nov 13, 2011 9:25 am

Agreed. It is better than 300.

I am not sure why NIkki Finke is hating on this movie. There is definitely some agenda here. And we’ll find out if is this post is removed.

First off, if it is a 300 clone, then why does she/he (Nikke is female? I don’t know) think that the movie should make as much as 300? If it is a clone then shouldn’t it be expected to make less, even a lot less.

Second, the movie is R-rated. Anything more than 20 million should be ocnsidered a success, especially at this time of the year.

Third, most weekend predictions were high teens to low 20s. So that clone, the movie overperformed above expectations.

Either Nikki Finke is the one spinning for a certain studio or she/he is not very bright. I’m not from the “industry” and I can make a better analysis than her.

K • on Nov 13, 2011 6:11 pm

Well, as you just said you are not from the industry and that is pretty clear. The movie was predicted at such a low number because it was terrible–visually great, script wise and acting a piece of shit. So yes, it did better than the predictions but still not the kind of money it needed to be considered a big hit. This type of genre with all the buzz and the people behind it–should have done at least forty five mil to be considered a true hit. Spin, spin, spin is what Relativity will do though. I’m glad Nikki pointed out that two years ago they were saying the budget was $120 because there is no way that the budget was $75 mil (as they are now claiming) with those kind of special effects. They are flat out lying about production costs.

Hardy • on Nov 13, 2011 9:10 pm

Well clearly you are not industry either because you sound like a 14 year old who gets his “industry” info from Deadline. You sound like child hating on something you have not seen. Rookie mistake.

The movie was expected to open in the low 20s because it isn’t a brand name, there is no recognizable star in the movie (although after this opening I am sure things will change for some of the cast members), and it is rated R at a time when new movies are generally for families.

And now you’re talking about them lying about the production cost. Another rookie mistake. If you’re going to audit a movie’s production cost you better sound intelligent first, otherwise you’re just screaming at a blank wall.

Hardy • on Nov 13, 2011 9:25 pm

Another thing, I didn’t see a lot of buzz on Immortals more than Jack and Jill, so I’m glad the movie at least beat that movie that was riding solely on a big name star who ate all of it’s budget.

In case you didn’t notice, almost all boxoffice reports today about Immortals no.1 debut have been positive. It also opened no.1 globally. I don’t even know how this happened because there’s no big name star in the movie, and unlike 300 is not based a popular comic book source nor plugged with the name of a huge fanboy favorite Frank Miller.

Hardy • on Nov 13, 2011 9:27 pm

And one last thing K, if I, the non-industry expert can see through this website then you are not fooling anyone.

Joseph • on Nov 11, 2011 10:54 pm

Fuck that.

If they beat the pants off A-lister Sandler with this R-rated film, then that’s a win.

300 was based on an existing property, had a rabid fanbase of Frank Miller devotees and plus an easy to explain plot (300 vs millions).

This week’s numbers is a huge win for R-rated movies. Hope this tops $100 million.

I can’t imagine a non-comedy R-rated movie opening north of $60M ever again.

Rory • on Nov 11, 2011 11:43 pm

The movie was a mess. Cavill plays every role like he is bored. Can’t be bothered trying to act. Too busy fussing over his diet I guess.

Sickle Cell • on Nov 13, 2011 8:33 am

Tarsem needs to hang em’ up…

I’m still waiting for the “visionary director” that I keeping getting sold…

Steven • on Nov 11, 2011 4:49 pm

No mystery Tower Heist is a MAJOR FLOP. VERY unfunny!!! What a price of SHIT!

Frank • on Nov 11, 2011 11:18 pm

Tower Heist not doing well at the box office: Shoulda rehearsed.

ChristopherMaker • on Nov 12, 2011 7:23 am

Nice callback!
+1

JimmyT • on Nov 11, 2011 4:52 pm

Good get for Immortals, it’s looking like it could even hit 30+ for the weekend, embarrassing the young male fare from last weekend that didn’t live up to tracking. Nice get from the newest of the mini-studios.

Abby • on Nov 11, 2011 4:55 pm

Hey CCC, Virgin does. I saw the film this afternoon and it said it is Virgin produced. Visually stunning like the inside of the plane but minus the men with ripped abs. Great film. Sir Richard touches it and it turns to gold i guess. I loved Limitless also.

If Jack & Jill doesn’t flop it just proves that Adam Sandler can make ANYTHING a hit. That trailer was terrible, just utterly repellent, and this is coming from somebody who liked You Don’t Mess With the Zohan.

julesfromny • on Nov 11, 2011 6:30 pm

I don’t understand Adam Sandler’s appeal. I’m not trying to be a smarty pants, I just don’t get it. I did giggle a few times in front of Zohan, and he was okay in Funny people, an unfunny movie. The rest just seems to me of Tyler Perry’s caliber. Can someone explain how most of his movies gross north of $100m, please? There has to be some objective reason, other than “the audience is stupid”.

not judging • on Nov 11, 2011 7:10 pm

>> Can someone explain how most of his movies gross north of $100m, please?

I suppose it’s one word: family.

His films are an opportunity for everyone in the family to do something together. It’s about the process, the quality of the film is secondary.

Families can use his films over and over again for that, because they are a known quantity, unchallenging and acceptable to all including young kids.

Jack • on Nov 12, 2011 12:42 am

FAMILY?!?!?!?!?!?

I would call Sandler’s films ANYTHING but family. There’s a a lot of gross, over-the-top juvenile behavior in all of his films.

I’m not gonna hang out with my Ma&Pa for Happy Gilmore or Grandma’s Boy. They’re just not gonna get it.

But for a young guy, it’s silly guilty pleasure. The kinda jokes you crack with your friends over a few beers.

Sandler’s funny. His friends are funny. It’s a no lose situation. You know what you’re getting. And I’m happy to giggle my a$$ for $10 over Steve Buscemi putting on lipstick…

Do-Wop, Do-Boobie, Do-Boobie-Wop, Du-Wop, Do-Waaaaaaang…..

Mark • on Nov 12, 2011 6:26 am

Uh – “Grandma’s Boy” was not an Adam Sandler movie. Just a heads up.

bill • on Nov 12, 2011 1:08 pm

Granma’s Boy was produced by Adam Sandler’s Happy Madison Productions. So yeah, it kind of was an Adam Sandler flick.

brick • on Nov 11, 2011 7:29 pm

His movies are low brow, but they are entertaining. He knows his audience and gives them what they want, laughs. A lot of cynical people didn’t like Just Go With It, but I enjoyed it.

Spacelamb • on Nov 11, 2011 8:34 pm

What I don’t understand is how they make much money. Dude is EXPENSIVE. The budgets are usually around $80M (high for comedy) because Sandler & his crew don’t come cheap. They usually make about $200M worldwide but with P&A etc there can’t be that much left in the kitty in the end. It’s not as though they sell millions of toys like the Cars movies. I read somewhere that a big chunk of the budget is always paid for by product placement, but still…

The Whiz • on Nov 11, 2011 9:12 pm

I really think it is that simple. People like poop jokes. It’s like “Idiocracy.” That’s where we’re headed.

Yeah, the b.o. is down a bit for this Sandler release, but $25 mil is still way too much for that turd. I think it’s got 2 positive reviews on RT.

Shawn • on Nov 12, 2011 12:27 am

Despite the angry shtick he’s affable. He’s the kind of guy who’d ask “How does that guy make movies that take in north of $100m” and you’d want to answer him.

Some of his films aren’t bad. I enjoyed The Wedding Singer, Reign Over Me, and Happy Gilmore, which was kind of dumb. Don’t Mess with the Zohan didn’t do it for me, but I recently watched Big Daddy and despite a few stupid moments it redeemed itself.

He’s a lot of misses and Jack and Jill will probably be one of them, but he’s built up enough good will with audiences that his name draws attention if not automatic box office.

Dan In NYC • on Nov 12, 2011 8:05 am

Sandler is the McDonalds of the film world. He figured out a long time ago, why bother preparing a quality, nutritious meal, when your fans have shown they’re willing to buy the same greasy, fatty slop over and over.

tsuru • on Nov 12, 2011 9:28 am

I like Sandler. That film where Drew Barrymore couldn’t remember anything so they put her on a boat — that was funny.

bobby the saint • on Nov 13, 2011 12:45 am

that would be “50 First Dates”

Alex • on Nov 14, 2011 3:36 pm

His SNL stuff was the best to me. His movies mostly don’t add up to how great that stuff was. They seem to get worse as the years go by and people do go see them.

College Student • on Nov 11, 2011 9:01 pm

The only other trailer this year that I can think of which generated more vitriol was the teaser for ‘Conan the Barbarian.’

‘Jack and Jill’ looked horrible but the numbers don’t reflect that. Sandler, as long as he doesn’t try to be serious (Punch Drunk Love, Spanglish, Funny People), seems to be up there with Tyler Perry as one of the few whose films are critic-proof.

on • on Nov 12, 2011 9:42 am

What else was there for a group of high school kids to watch this weekend besides Tower Heist? Let’s not forget that Adam Sandler has a following. The guy appeals to a certain crowd. My friend laughs at ANYTHING he does, including the trailer for Jack and Jill.

biscuit • on Nov 13, 2011 4:06 pm

I think Adam Sandler is funny. And I know plenty of cool and funny executives who think the same. Not all his movies are great but he has some classics.

jer • on Nov 12, 2011 10:17 am

I think the fact that Jack and Jill is doing any of kind of business, let alone decent business, is a testament to the star power of Sandler among the fast food set.

Mike • on Nov 11, 2011 5:23 pm

Oh for the love Mike, can everyone just go subject themselves to Jack and Jill so Immortals won’t get #1. They don’t deserve it.

Victor • on Nov 11, 2011 6:56 pm

Did you see Jack and Jill? Theaters might have to issue refunds its so bad.

Ben • on Nov 13, 2011 12:31 am

Sooo this would mean you saw it?

Egon • on Nov 11, 2011 11:50 pm

Both flicks are horrible. Garbage. Sandler is cringe inducing here and Cavill’s notoriously terrible acting makes Immortals more of a comedy than Jack and Jill. Everyone behind these movies should be honestly embarrassed to pump out such garbage.

m • on Nov 11, 2011 5:44 pm

Whats up with the low screen count for J.Edgar. Eastwood and DiCaprio and they can’t find more screens to play?

Yoda • on Nov 12, 2011 5:56 pm

Sorry, but DiCaprio is the problem. It’s hard to take him as a hardened or troubled man with that cherub face of his. Even when he’s 65, he’ll be more boyish than “mannish.” And all the scowling in the world can’t overcome that “thin” voice of his.

All I see is Leo DiCaprio “playing” J. Edgar Hoover. It’s hard to get beyond that and into the film itself. I imagine he’ll be equally hard to believe as “Sinatra.”

ONEandDONE • on Nov 13, 2011 9:45 am

DiCaprio is an intellectual fraud, only his handlers keep him from any interviews where he has to think on his feet. The only times he sits down to speak as “himself,” he is blatantly rehearsed.

He’ll always be a child actor, yet you power-worshipping industry morons like to convince yourselves he’s so much more.

Fucking rubes.

ONEandDONE • on Nov 13, 2011 9:47 am

Yoda, I was not referring to you as being one of those “industry morons.” Apologies if it was perceived that way.

Bob • on Nov 11, 2011 5:44 pm

The industry’s in such shit shape, can we encourage everyone to do well? Otherwise it’s movies on demand for the rest of eternity and goodbye, movie theaters.

CJS • on Nov 11, 2011 6:08 pm

Bob – The multiplex I generally go to has already closed half the theater because ticket sales have been so bad.

flixnut • on Nov 12, 2011 6:38 am

The simple solution is for “Hollywood” to make better movies for less money, and cinema owners to cut ticket prices in half (concessions revenue has a larger profit margin). Only then will the multiplexes be full again. We’re hurting out here!

Magilla • on Nov 11, 2011 6:29 pm

Yes, there are too many petty commenters who just want a movie to fail because they think they’re supposed to hate the company behind it. Or worse, they don’t even bother to offer a reason. Shallow schadenfreude.

Cash • on Nov 11, 2011 7:49 pm

No. As ticket prices continue to rise while film quality drops, my need to see anything in theaters evaporates with each disappointing release. Hollywood needs to learn it’s lesson, and get back to spending more time and effort on the movies themselves instead of their ad campaigns.

maddening • on Nov 11, 2011 11:57 pm

So much damn money was spent on the Immortals’ campaign, I was actually shocked. The worse the buzz got, the more money they dumped into wall-to-wall ads. Yet they couldn’t take a few extra months to nail down a real damn script?!? These idiots would rather spend a shit ton of money on desprate ads to turn around bad buzz, than spend one damn cent on a writer to prevent most of the bad buzz in the first place!

Hollywood • on Nov 12, 2011 4:13 am

What’s a writer?

I thought we just put a bunch of pretty visuals on the screen and people will come.

The Whiz • on Nov 11, 2011 9:08 pm

Count me as a former moviegoer who rarely goes anymore. I used to see a movie a week. I never go now. It’s not the product. On a weekend like this, when nothing was well-reviewed, I’d have seen a good movie for the 2nd or 3rd time. With rampant talking/texting, I just don’t do it anymore. I don’t know what % of the box office being down is attributable to that, but that’s why they lost me. I just can’t take it anymore. I go to movies here in IA (also in WI and IL), and it’s bad here. I can’t imagine what it’s like in big cities.

If theaters would crack down like The Alamo Drafthouse (also Arclight in LA?), I’d go. They don’t. I’m not policing the theater(s) anymore. It’s too much work. Clean up the experience and they’ve got me back.

Rina • on Nov 12, 2011 1:43 am

You make a good point but i wonder if they are not connected. Movies that play to the ‘talking/texting’ crowd are all that are out there now and the ‘serious’ ones are either agenda driven in a way that does not appeal to the mass audience or just plain boring. Caught LA Confidential the other day and was just as into it as when i first saw it. Same with Gosford Park. Same with Quiz Show. When i saw them in house, there was a healthy crowd and the movies were compelling and polished. Now you give me Adam Sandler in drag or J Edgar in drag and they both look like a……drag – and you wonder why i stay home?

Lars • on Nov 12, 2011 4:18 am

I agree. At least in big cities we have MELANCHOLIA opening this weekend, which has been getting phenomenal reviews (like 80% on rottentomatoes). I always like to submit myself to Von Trier’s torture in the cinema (I’m being sincere, saw DANCER IN THE DARK twice in the theater, loved BREAKING THE WAVES, saw both DOGVILLE and MANDERLAY at the NY Film Festival).

Marcus Mayo • on Nov 12, 2011 5:11 am

As people get older the go to the movies less and less frequently. This was so even before the internet was available in the home and on hand held devices.

nancylonghorn • on Nov 11, 2011 5:48 pm

hitting anywhere close to or above 30 on an R rated film is gold. and its not a sequel to 300 just because it’s from the same producers……duh

Trevor • on Nov 11, 2011 6:44 pm

it is an original script, rated R, and has no real star power, so I agree… anything over 30 is very impressive.

carl • on Nov 12, 2011 12:03 am

Not only does it lack star power, but it also contains a collection of some of the weakest actors working today. Including sleepwalking Rourke. And a director that doesn’t know his ass from his elbow when it comes to story. So, this box office is a huge victory. No other way to look at it.

ROclockCK • on Nov 13, 2011 6:53 pm

Sorry you’ve spent so much of your life suckling on the ‘glass teat’ that you don’t recognize cinema anymore. There’s more pure visual storytelling in the opening credits of Tarsem’s “The Fall” than the entire first act of most TV-redux scripts passing as movies these days.

ohh burn • on Nov 14, 2011 7:01 pm

Sorry Tarsem that you make shit movies and are so angry when this is constantly pointed out. Spend less time reading the comments on your own press and more time actually learning how to make a movie and you won’t be known as “Tarsem: Maker of Shit” anymore.

Gerry • on Nov 11, 2011 5:54 pm

The box office is still in a slump because the economy is in the toilet. Studios and theaters are crazy if they still think movies are recession-proof. They’re not anymore. Too expensive. The average moviegoer can barely pay their bills let alone take the family to the movies right now.

In a couple of years, if the economy rebounds well and there is STILL a box office slump, then their really will be a problem. I have a feeling many moviegoers won’t return, content to wait for Redbox or what have you since they’ll be used to it.

sd • on Nov 11, 2011 6:25 pm

Economy was in the toilet last year and movies did well. It’s this year’s movies — they stink.

Gravity's Silhouette • on Nov 12, 2011 3:29 pm

The box office hasn’t been all that great since the economy tanked in 2008. Yes, some films have managed to make money, but the truth is that a lot of people simply can’t afford any longer to indulge themselves on Adam Sandler’s films at 10$ a ticket like they used to. I can’t afford cable/Internet/telephone service, plus a Netflix account *AND* go to the movies and buy some of them on Blu-Ray anymore.

I used to be able to afford the trashy, low-quality garbage that Hollywood produced because I had disposable income and didn’t mind frittering it away on Michael Bay; no more. Now I have to be more picky and selective, and since Hollywood is hell bent on remaking everything in their back catalog instead of creating anything original, their lackluster grosses are starting to catch up with them.

Mark • on Nov 12, 2011 6:28 am

The economy was WORSE last year, and movies did better at the box office.

How are you even comparing a phenomenon of a film that opened at the height of a economic bubble and what looks to be a 30+ weekend on an r rated film, making it a top 5 r rated opening for the year? Stick to the snark girl, leave the comps to the research folks.

hopeless pedant • on Nov 11, 2011 6:07 pm

Of course WB could have gotten 1000+ more screens had they wanted. But they decided to avoid theatres that get few adults or other groups for which the film had appeal.

This is a basic part of the decision making process a distributor goes through. It seems like the smart one for this film.

Prints (which most theatres still use) cost a few thousand dollars each, bad grossing ones want to come out quickly, meaning the print doesn’t even make its money back.

Anonymous • on Nov 11, 2011 6:19 pm

Hollywood better take note – the people are sick and tired of s****y movies. Look at the choices audiences have across the board. If a restaurant menu offered you 5 different pieces of s**t would you stay, eat s**t, then pay for it? Industry is cooking itself on a frying pan it created, hope it turns around because right now it’s a f****n joke – The Pink Elephant.

Josh • on Nov 11, 2011 6:19 pm

Immortals is tracking well and I agree with “nancylonghorn,” “above 30 on an R rated film is gold.” I saw a test screening of the film and have to say I was impressed. I expected a knock off 300, but it was extremely well made. Public thinks the same from first batch of reviews. Relativity is starting to make good movies, but we will have to see if the box office agrees.

Oscars here we come • on Nov 12, 2011 12:11 am

Thank you planty mcplant. Your marketing flogging is noted. The masterpiece of Immortals is unbelievable. Truly not to be believed.

Adam • on Nov 11, 2011 6:26 pm

Come on people. If Immortals opens at $25M, Relativity will at least break even. Opening box office numbers are not where a company like Relativity makes it’s money anyways so why are we even talking about this?

Alex • on Nov 11, 2011 6:33 pm

Box office numbers are looking good for Immortals and bad for Jack & Jill. Lets talk about this tomorrow.

Bill • on Nov 11, 2011 6:38 pm

Has a prestige movie with such an elite cast and crew behind it ever bombed so spectacularly and surprisingly with the critics as J. Edgar? 41% on RT.

Hereafter, The Changeling, Flags of Our Fathers… basically the last few Eastwood movies that weren’t Gran Torino or Million Dollar Baby.

terry • on Nov 11, 2011 7:34 pm

I don’t see Hoover as anyone exciting to watch about. Leo still looks like leo and nothing like hoover. This film opened on limited release so that is one good reason it is low on the ticket sales right now.

Cash • on Nov 11, 2011 7:51 pm

Who cares what the critics think? Most of the movies they love turn out to be complete garbage. I’m waiting to see what the audience score winds up at after the weekend.

lothor • on Nov 11, 2011 9:41 pm

Terrible screenplay.

James • on Nov 12, 2011 4:22 am

My question is what happened from when I went to bed last night and it was at $18 mil and this morning down to $13. Who sends estimates for this film and why is the industry so desparate for it to succeed? A sympathetic version of (a mama’s boy) Hoover is not what I want to pay for.

Mark • on Nov 12, 2011 6:31 am

“Prestige” movies RARELY are box office smashes. They’re not made to make hundreds of millions. They’re made to be good films. “J. Edgar” isn’t Eastwood’s best film, by a long shot.

Let’s see if we can use the logic of right wingers with this one, who always blame poor box office on a director’s politics – Eastwood is a far right winger who supports sex offender, Herman Cain – his movie bombs. Coincidence?

Joe Melnick • on Nov 12, 2011 10:37 am

I don’t think Eastwood is ‘far right’, and unlike actual sex offenders (ie Roman Polanski, darling of Hollywood), there are only accusations against Cain, not testimony or proof. It remains to be seen what he did if anything, let’s stick with innocent until proven guilty rather than the other way around.

I’d say stick to movies rather than politics, but you don’t seem to have a grasp of that topic either. Try online poker, or reading.

doug • on Nov 12, 2011 11:47 am

Yes

Rina • on Nov 13, 2011 8:01 am

I dont think anyone of us would like to be called a ‘sex offender’ on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations, and i wonder if the charge has any real meaning coming from people who laud directors like Polanski. But the fact is, as moviegoers we have always been willing to put up with a lot but the one thing that is always hard to justify paying for even in a good economy is being bored. And the trailers for J Edgar look boring. They look like every earnest biopic that we have already seen back when we had the money and only had to pay $7.50 for it.
And the fact is, when you look back at some astonishing performances of DiCaprio – hate to say it about a guy in his 30s – but his best performances were when he was very young. This Boys Life and Gilbert Grape. He has been coasting ever since, not bad but not living up to his early promise. Good but not as good as he had been an in this economy not $12.50 good. He just seems so out of touch with whatever tuned him in to his great work. A shame. Im sorry for him but not sorry enough to give him another couple hours out of my life.

Ben M. • on Nov 11, 2011 7:05 pm

Bill, there have been plenty of bombs like J. Edgar (All the King’s Men remake, Nine, The Lovely Bones etc.), there is almost always at least one every oscar season.

I think that is a good number for Immortals since the tracking I read seemed to indicate $23-24 million, but the film is very dull so I expect bad WOM to keep it from good legs, though it does at least end on a high note with perhaps the best shot of the year and should do well overseas.

honestly • on Nov 12, 2011 12:19 am

This movie was just plain bad. Everything about it was misconceived. Cavill is a wet blanket. He has no energy. His performances are completely dead. Tarsem does not give a crap about scripts. This is pretty apparent by now. Nice costume design. Nice CGI sets. That’s all he cares about.

CarloMonte • on Nov 11, 2011 7:15 pm

Easiest box office prediction: Relativity’s spin machine will be in ultra overdrive this weekend…Box office doesn’t matter anymore, especially if it’s a Relativity movie that underperforms…The film was presold in foreign markets, so it doesn’t matter how it does at the box office, especially if it’s a Relativity movie that underperforms. No mention, of course, of whether that ultra-hyped J.P. Morgan deal to buy out Elliott’s position that six months ago seemed minutes away from being sealed still has any shot or quietly imploded. No mention of “key day-to-day advisor” Greg O’Hara. No mention of what they must be thinking over at Elliott these days.

rodeo guy • on Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

If you’re going to be a snarky ass have the decently to learn how movie financing actually works.

Thanks.

I seriously doubt anyone at Relativity is crying over a $35+ million opening. These numbers are about 7-8 MILLION above industry projections. This film will likely do even better in foreign markets. Then DVD, then cable/TV. All is well in the universe.

After all, the only thing more certain than Relativity “spinning” it’s box office numbers are idiots on Deadline Hollywood trying to convince everyone/themselves that every film is a huge flop.

carrie • on Nov 13, 2011 7:27 am

Relativity’s going to be throwing a party on Monday. This film totally surpassed projections and they’ve got another Tarsem film already in the can that I’m sure they’re now more confident in. People trying to spin this as a failure are out of their minds. R-rated film, no name actors, and it pulls off a $30+ million OW? They’re going to be thrilled.

Dorothy Palmer • on Nov 11, 2011 7:15 pm

J. Edgar will NOT be expanded. Count on it. And stick a fork in any Oscar buzz which was purely put out there by the media who for some reason fawn all over the irrevelant old coot Eastwood and babyfaced troll DiCaprio.

The fact that Dorff (who was up for the lead in Titanic) is three slots above DiCaprio at the box office is very telling.

Mark • on Nov 12, 2011 6:32 am

Um. Yeah, when was the last time Stephen Dorff had a #1 movie again?

Oh, right – never.

Almost every film that DiCaprio has been in has been at #1 at some point in its release.

roddymartindale • on Nov 12, 2011 3:14 pm

The fact that Dorff (who was up for the lead in Titanic) is three slots above DiCaprio at the box office is very telling.

How so? Immortals is an action film that would have done the same box office no matter who played Dorff’s part. Could Dorff have helped J. Edgar do as well as it has?

Dorothy Palmer • on Nov 13, 2011 7:50 am

At least Dorff can act occasionally (and looks and sounds like a man) unlike babyface DiCaprio. Dorff also doesn’t make a jackass of himself constantly by spouting off about things he knows nothing about (like “climate change” just before hopping onto his private jet back to his mega mansion).

jer • on Nov 13, 2011 10:41 am

You poor, poor human.

Jasperzoo • on Nov 13, 2011 9:29 pm

Dorothy Palmer wrote: “like ‘climate change’ just before hopping onto his private jet back to his mega mansion”

Citation needed.

Uhhh • on Nov 13, 2011 11:04 pm

Leo flies commercial.

FYI

bfagoa • on Nov 11, 2011 7:24 pm

J. EDGAR was so boring. Great performance by Leo. Oscar worthy even. Armie Hammer held up well next to him. Naomi Watts looked miserable through most of it. But Sweet Jesus, the movie was like a dramatized history lesson with a budget. I hate to say it, but the fact that it was directed by a gentleman of eighty years really shows through here. Mr. Eastwood will forever be a respected and admirable Icon but the outcome of his films from the last six to seven years (minus Gran Torino) have been so hyped yet so disappointing.

IMMORTALS was f*ckin’ nuts. Tarsem can direct spectacle as good as if not better than Zack Snyder but the story didn’t make any sense. It’s a shame because if they had a strong script this could’ve been something special. The action sequences and the art direction are the only reason to see it on the big screen. But couldn’t they have found a color pallet that wasn’t directly out of the 300 universe? Yes, unfortunately when I see ancient fighters go at it in a world of gold and brown, I’m going to think of 300.

Sandler is the master of WALMART cinema. I stopped caring about his movies after Punch Drunk Love (maybe REIGN ON ME). But the fact that he’s so in touch with his audience and knows exactly what they want and really just wants to make them laugh… I salute him.

Nic • on Nov 11, 2011 7:45 pm

Actually I find the entire crop to be strong considering expectations. J Edgar should be considered huge given reviews and subject matter. Immortals is above expectations by about 8 mill. Jack and Jill is good considering how awful it is and tower heist is holding well